Christmas, Easter, and Paganism
Over the past few centuries, an increasingly popular line of critical thought in the West has sought to discredit Christianity by debunking its historical foundations. This line of thought was illustrated sharply in the New York metropolitan area during a recent Christmas holiday season. At the New Jersey entrance to the Holland Tunnel a billboard was leased by American Atheists with the message “You know it’s a myth. This season, celebrate reason.” The image behind the message was that of the wise men following the star and riding their camels toward Bethlehem. Spokespersons for American Atheists claimed that they were not making an anti-Christian or anti-Christmas statement, but that they merely wished to “celebrate reason,” as the sign stated. One might wonder, however, why they chose not to illustrate their billboard with a dreidel and menorah or other images of the Jewish feast of Chanukah being celebrated at the same season, or why they chose not to illustrate their sign with images of the Muslim feast of Ramadan, celebrated just weeks previously. Fortunately, the tension was somewhat defused when the Catholic League put up a billboard on the Manhattan side of the tunnel stating, “You know it’s real. This season, celebrate Jesus.”
The intent of the critics is certainly understandable: If one can separate Christian belief and practice from its historical claims concerning the uniqueness of Jesus Christ—his divinity, incarnation, vicarious suffering and death, and especially his resurrection from the dead—then Christianity is relegated to the curious level of just one more human belief system among numerous competitors, and in the minds of many to the historical dustbin.[1] Among the better-known forms of this onslaught was the Jesus Seminar of the 1980s-90s, which attempted to determine the historically credible words and acts of Jesus by the votes of its members. The result was the admitted attempt to separate the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.”[2]
Some of the essentials of this rather anti-Christian line of reasoning have been repeated so many times in recent years through popular news media that many people have uncritically assumed its veracity. These assertions are heard most often around the major Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter. One such assertion is that the Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth on 25 December began as nothing less than a crude political power play by Roman Emperor Constantine I (r. 312-337). As the critique goes, no one has ever had a clue as to the calendar date of Jesus’ birth, and early Christians never bothered to celebrate the date of his birth. As it regards Constantine, he is seen as a political manipulator: sensing the increasing popularity of Christianity and its potential as a galvanizing social force in a Roman world desperately in need of unity following a period of internal warfare, Constantine invented a story about a vision of the cross, announced himself a Christian, and made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Furthermore, in order to enforce the practice of Christianity among the Roman populace, he deliberately replaced popular pagan festivals with Christian festivals. For instance, the pagan New Year festival at the vernal (Spring) equinox was replaced with the myth of Christ rising from the dead. Of equal importance, moreover, Constantine allegedly replaced the Roman festival of Saturnalia and the birthday of the sun at the Winter solstice with the celebration of Jesus’ birth.
What are Christians to make of such accusations? Is there any truth in these claims? What does it mean for the Christian observance of Christmas—the celebration of the birth of the Messiah? Even more importantly, what does it mean for the Christian celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, known as Easter? We shall begin by reviewing early Christian evidence for each of these feasts, and continue by investigating possible connections between them and ancient pre-Christian festivals.
Christmas Among Early Christians
The writings of several early Christian leaders point to the likelihood of widespread adoption of 25 December (or perhaps 6 January) as the birthdate of Jesus by the early third century. Evidence for festal celebration of his birth is, however, more scanty. The earliest known citation of 25 December as the birth date of Jesus is found in the Commentary on Daniel (4.23) by Hippolytus, where he stated that Christ was born on the eighth day of the kalends of January—which by Roman calculation is 25 December—and that it was a Wednesday. Just over a century later came the Chronograph of 354, an almanac of unknown authorship designed for use by Christians around Rome. The notation of “natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae” for VIII Kalends Ianuario is found at the beginning of a list of commemorative dates for Christian martyrs.[3] While these are the earliest known specific links of 25 December with the birth of Christ, in both documents this linkage is presented simply and forthrightly with no emphasis or explanation, which implies that the feast was already well known and that Christians around Rome had been celebrating Jesus’ birth on this date for some time.
But why 25 December? As is also the case with those who argue in favor of 6 January as the birth date of Jesus, it is not because of the date itself, but because of its relationship with another date nine months previous—which in this case is 25 March. It was stated perhaps most clearly by Augustine (354-430) of Hippo, who asserted not only that Christ “is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March,” but that it was “upon [this] day he also suffered,” and later that “He was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.”[4] Another example is found in the Canon of Hippolytus, where he specifically associated 25 March with the beginning of creation, and in one place even with the date of Christ’s birth.[5]
In the minds of many ancient peoples, including the Romans, 25 March was the vernal equinox (beginning of Spring), and was therefore viewed as the beginning of a new year. Many ancient peoples also understood the vernal equinox as marking the day of creation. In other words, the vernal equinox reflected the creation as it was at the very beginning—fresh from the hands of God, with all things in balance, and moving into the season of nature’s production. So for early Christians it only made eminent sense that God would likewise begin the re-creation of a redeemed humanity through the incarnation of his Son in human form on the same date.
An alternate way of understanding this (and, in the mind of this author, more theologically defensible from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint) is to assert the likelihood that the incarnation of Christ occurred on the Jewish feast of Passover—which was 30 March in 3 BC, the most likely year of Jesus’ birth.[6] Although a few days after the date of the vernal equinox, placing the incarnation on Passover provides a more theologically grounded date for the beginning of the earthly life of Christ, since he was likewise crucified on Passover thirty-five years later. And 30 March is still essentially nine months before the likely date of his birth on 25 December.
Christmas and Saturnalia
Saturnalia was popularly celebrated by the Romans on the several days surrounding the Winter Solstice, typically 17-23 December. Many have assumed that the choice of 25 December as the birthday celebration of Christ was a political power play by Constantine and his successors to enforce their new religion on the general populace. Commonly cited in this argument is the fact that Emperor Aurelian (r. AD 270-275) built a temple in Rome to “Sol Invictus” (the Unconquerable Sun) in AD 274—nearly a half-century before Constantine.[7] This assertion was popularized more recently by Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.
Unfortunately for its proponents, the theory of Christmas as a political power play and/or Christian overlay for a pagan holiday possesses some glaring weaknesses. First of all, evidence from early Christian sources indicates that Christians were already celebrating the birth of Christ long before Aurelian’s construction of the Sol Invictus temple. For instance, the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles—a document of unknown authorship, but which originated from Asia Minor in the late second to early third century—lists the birth of Christ along with several other feasts observed by Christians.[8] In addition, even the casual observer can see that the dates of Saturnalia do not exactly match that of Christmas, meaning that one is engaging in rather sloppy calendrics to assert so simply that Christmas was merely a Christian overlay intended to replace a pagan festival.
More evidence from patristic sources indicates that Christians were generally offended by the level of feasting, revelry, and sexual license which accompanied Saturnalia. For ancient Christians, the birth of Christ often meant fasting rather than feasting.[9] In addition, while Saturnalia may have been observed by numerous tribal groups before the lifetime of Jesus, it appears that Aurelian was the first to give it official Roman recognition. While the death of Aurelian likely prevented his persecution of Christians from advancing very far, his attempt to give political and societal backing to Saturnalia shows nonetheless that he was no friend of Christianity.[10]
Most important, however, is the evidence coming from the several ancient Christian writers who give the earliest input on Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth. Quite tellingly, none of them ever mentions Saturnalia in connection with Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth or in connection with the date of 25 December. Consequently, we have no hard evidence that early Christians even engaged in discussion about the replacement of Saturnalia by Christmas—which surely would have been a notable development, and would have elicited spirited discussion among them. It is therefore likely that the liberal critique of the origin of the celebrations surrounding the birth of Christ is dependent on a skewed interpretation of historical facts— that in fact the Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth predated the official recognition of Saturnalia, not vice-versa. While numismatic evidence of the period appears to affirm the claim that Constantine indeed suppressed the cult of Sol Invictus[11], the prior popularity of the Christmas celebration means that there was no need for him to attempt a simple Christian replacement of Saturnalia. Hence, it appears that this is at least equally a case of a pagan Roman ruler of the third century attempting to counteract the growing popularity of Christianity, as it is a case of a Christian Roman ruler of the fourth century attempting to counteract the popularity of a pagan practice.
A similar accusation against early Christians has been made with reference to Mithraism—a popular cult in the Roman world in the first to fourth centuries AD. Based on worship of the Persian deity Mithras, it shared some similarities of theology and practice with Christianity, including a cosmic struggle between good and evil, a personal savior, communal meals, and a hierarchy of officials. French scholar Joseph Ernest Renan (1823-1892) in fact viewed Mithraism as a viable competitor to early Christianity, claiming, “One can say that, had Christianity been halted by the growth of some mortal malady, the world might have been Mithraist.”[12] Later writers have tempered Renan’s enthusiasm, emphasizing instead the many theological and practical divergences between the two, and attributing the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism to the Roman culture in which both grew during the same period.
Speaking of Christians who were offended by the antics of those who participated in the rites of Saturnalia and Mithraism, one early Christian author who did make specific mention of Saturnalia was Tertullian (AD 145-220) in his On Idolatry. Understandably, Tertullian’s primary concern was to warn Christians against participation in the patently sinful activities of Saturnalia—gluttony, drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and especially pagan worship rituals. Tertullian made no specific mention, however, of Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth, whether at the same time of the year or any other. Some Christians—including Puritan minister Increase Mather (1639-1723)—have perceived a veiled reference to Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth in Tertullian’s challenge to his readers: “Not the Lord’s day, not Pentecost, even if…[non-Christians]… had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians. [Yet] We are not apprehensive lest we seem to be heathens!”[13]
In all fairness to Mather (and to Tertullian), we should remember that one of the prime reasons for their feelings of revulsion against the popular practices of Saturnalia is that before the invention of modern refrigeration in the early twentieth century, December was traditionally a period of feasting in nearly all societies in the temperate zones North of the Tropics. Since December is after the major harvest of grains and vegetables, and after the major hunting season of the year, it was often celebrated with feasting (fresh food tastes better!) before the majority of the food stuffs were salted away and stored for future months. Unfortunately, this also means that December became known for gluttony, drunkenness, and the consequent rowdiness and other behaviors which resulted from this setting. These became the behaviors associated with Saturnalia and other cultural celebrations of the Winter Solstice—behaviors which are inadvisable for anyone seeking to follow Jesus.
The possibility that Tertullian was referring to Saturnalia in this comment without mentioning it specifically is debatable at best. (He does specifically mention Saturnalia and some other cultural festivals elsewhere in the same document, but here he mentions none of them specifically.) Even if it is true, however, that Tertullian is here referring to Saturnalia, what seems to have escaped the notice of Mather—and of anyone who would see this as historical evidence of the use of Christmas as a Christian overlay of Saturnalia—is the very chronology involved. In other words, if Tertullian was indeed referring to Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth, then it is further evidence of Christmas as a public Christian event in the early third century—a half-century before the construction of the Sol Invictus temple by Aurelian and a full century before Constantine and the legalization of Christianity in the Roman world. In other words, it constitutes solid textual evidence of the exact opposite of what Mather and others wish to assert.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that Christians were intermittently persecuted during Tertullian’s lifetime and for another century thereafter until the rise of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity. (Witness Tertullian’s own Apology addressed to “Rulers of the Roman Empire.”[14]) Under such circumstances, Christians would have had little opportunity or the political weight required to attempt the cultural conversion from Saturnalia to Christmas. On the other hand, however, Tertullian—the first Christian writer to clearly delineate the doctrine of one God in three persons[15]—would have had every reason to urge fellow-believers to remain faithful to their confession of the one true God and therefore to avoid any pollution of their faith by participation in culturally popular activities.
This was the same challenge facing the first generation of Gentile Christians, who were strongly encouraged by the letter from the apostles following the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29) to avoid 1) eating meat from animals sacrificed to idols, 2) drinking blood, 3) eating meat from strangled animals, and 4) sexual promiscuity—all features of pagan worship rituals. And perhaps this is the same challenge facing Christians in a modern Western world in which the cultural forces incessantly encourage ever more consumer spending—to practice more uniquely Christian ways of celebrating the birth of the Messiah.
Pascha, Easter, and Östre
Although it receives decidedly less attention in a modern commercial world which seeks to squeeze a financial gain from every calendrical occasion which can be even remotely conceived as a holiday, the Christian observance of Easter has nevertheless received its fair share of revisionistic historical critique in recent years. As is the case with Christmas, anyone who executes a simple online search using the word “Easter” will find no dearth of articles claiming an ancient pagan pedigree for the Christian feast. In this case, the deity is the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre, (known variously as Östre, Ostara, Eostur, Austro, etc.), whence we get our term “East” (Ost in German)—a reference to the direction of the dawn and the beginning of each new day.
Not surprisingly, some authors have alleged that after Christianity was legalized and slowly became the dominant religion in the late Roman world the Christian authorities usurped Eosturmonath (“month of Eostur,” roughly equivalent with April) and adapted it for their own use. In addition, it has been alleged that the continued prominence of pre-Christian elements such as rabbits and eggs in celebrations of the new life of Spring shows the falsehood of the Christian claim that Easter is only about the resurrection of Jesus—that in fact early Christians participated rather syncretistically in the worship of numerous local deities. Some have adopted the History of Religions approach in claiming that the story of Jesus’ resurrection is merely a myth that Christians borrowed from non-Judaic religious traditions and pasted onto the popular stories and teachings of Jesus. Some have taken the further step to allege that “Easter” finds its theological as well as linguistic roots in “Ashtoreth”—a female deity common among several of ancient Israel’s neighbors, whose worship cult was specifically condemned and placed under prohibition for the Israelites (Judges 2:10-15, 10:6; 1 Samuel 7:3-4, 12:10; 1 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 23:7).[16]
What may be surprising to many moderns, however, is the dearth of support for such assertions from ancient and medieval sources, whether Christian or otherwise. While philologists since Jacob Grimm[17] have noted the possible linguistic connections between Easter and “Eostur,” “Ostara,” and so on, the only known citation of “Eostur” by an author of the medieval period appears to be that of Bede the Venerable in AD 725. In his The Reckoning of Time he noted,
Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated “Paschal month”, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honor feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honored name of the old observance.[18]
So are Christians indeed guilty of usurping a prior pagan festival and imposing their own meaning upon it? Did Christians simply borrow wholesale from the legends of pre-existing religious traditions to invent the story of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead? Four distinct pieces of evidence argue strongly against such a conclusion. The first piece of evidence is the disciples’ own experience of the resurrected Jesus. As noted in chapter one, their encounter with the resurrected Jesus was so transformative that it provided the impetus for the beginning of the movement that became known as Christianity. In other words, without the unmistakable and unshakable belief of the disciples that Jesus had indeed risen physically from the dead, Christianity never would have become a movement in the first place. Their insistence on the physical resurrection of Jesus provided the primary point of contention between them and the Jewish religious leaders in the weeks and months immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus, as recorded in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles (4:5-22, 5:27-42, 7:51-60). Furthermore, the apostles understood the life and work of Jesus as the center-point and end-point of human history, as evidenced by Peter urging his listeners at Solomon’s Portico to repent so that God would “send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago” (3:19-21).
The second piece of evidence is the early Christian awareness of opposition—even violent opposition—to their message. It is clear from Acts (4:19-20, 5:29, 7:54ff, 21:13-14) and other places in the New Testament (2 Timothy 4:6-8; 1 Peter 3:8, 4:12) that the earliest Christians were willing to risk their own lives for the message of Jesus’ resurrection. From all appearances they took to heart the words of Jesus himself that, “…they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake” (Matthew 24:9), and “If the world hates you, know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). Under such circumstances, it is unimaginable that the followers of Jesus would have put their lives on the line for a false message. In other words, if they knew that they had simply hidden the dead body of Jesus and invented the story of his resurrection, they surely would not have died for it.
Predictably, some have claimed that the early Christian tales of persecution and martyrdom at the hands of Jewish and especially Roman authorities were largely invented by Christians of the early fourth century who sought to legitimize their newfound political favor under Constantine and his successors. Furthermore, it is alleged that these themes were then intentionally woven into the heavily edited New Testament—which they falsely claimed was written entirely by the apostles.[19] But such a claim is hardly credible, as it is highly unlikely that the Christian movement would have survived for even one generation—let alone three centuries—if its earliest propagators knew that its central message of Jesus’ resurrection was historically untrue. More to the point, however, this claim runs counter to Roman sources which clearly testify to persecution of Christians. Imperial biographer Suetonius (ca. AD 122), for instance, noted that Nero persecuted Christians, apparently because they were “given to a new and mischievous superstition.” Moreover, Tacitus (ca. 115) documented that Nero sought to place the blame on Christians for the great fire of Rome in AD 64. And even more obvious testimony of Roman persecution of Christians is the correspondence between Emperor Trajan and Pliny the Younger, governor of Pontus and Bithynia (ca. 112), which documents the practices of arrest, interrogation, invitation to renounce Christ and participate in the state cult, and even execution.[20]
The third piece of evidence arguing against the possibility of Christian adoption of pagan rites at the vernal equinox springs from the very chronology of the spread of Christianity. The Germanic tribes of Northern Europe were relative late-comers to the faith in the fifth through ninth centuries—well after the proliferation of Christian worship practices throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East, and even after many of the debates over calculation of the proper date of the resurrection celebration from year to year. The aforementioned Constitutions of the Holy Apostles includes the resurrection celebration as an annual feast of Christians at the turn of the third century. In addition, fifth century church historians Socrates Scholasticus (ca. 430) and Sozomenus (ca. 445) both affirm that annual resurrection celebrations of their day have apostolic roots.[21] So if Christians of Northern Europe did somehow adopt the theology and practices of their pagan neighbors, the truly remarkable thing to be noted is that it changed none of the essentials of the Christian faith.
The fourth piece of evidence arguing against a pagan origin of Easter is the rather limited linguistic bounds of the word itself. While the Deutschesprechers and English-speakers among Christians comfortably speak of Oster and Easter, most other languages used by Christians employ some form of the Greek term Πασχα (“Pascha”). Derived from the verb πασχω, meaning “to suffer,” it is a reference to Jesus’ suffering on the cross. Although not a direct translation of the Hebrew term פסח (‘Pesach,” translated “Passover”), as is often assumed, it is nevertheless understood as a rough equivalent since Jesus is the Passover Lamb whose blood atoned for the sins of humanity. Regardless, accusations that Christians somehow usurped pagan celebrations of Eostur and Ostara sound strangely irrelevant to the majority of Christians worldwide who celebrate Pascha.
This is not to say, on the other hand, that Christians have completely avoided the use of local practices, traditions, and words. Anthony McRoy said it well:
“Of course, even if Christians did engage in contextualization—expressing their message and worship in the language or forms of the local people—that in no way implies doctrinal compromise. Christians around the world have sought to redeem the local culture for Christ while purging it of practices antithetical to biblical norms. After all, Christians speak of “Good Friday,” but they are in no way honoring the worship of the Norse/Germanic queen of the gods Freya by doing so.”[22]
Unfortunately, this appears to be a case in which many modern Christians have allowed themselves to be victimized by the popularity of an accusation that comes from outside Christianity and has no real historical basis. Indeed, some evangelical Protestants have operated on the assumption that any practice associated in any way with medieval Roman Catholicism is thereby corrupt and un-Christian. But if this chapter has clarified anything at all, it is the fact that Christian celebrations of the particular dates of Jesus’ birth and resurrection from the dead pre-date by centuries anything that can be called medieval Catholicism—and date very possibly from the earliest generations of Christians.
Later chapters will discuss the “Stones of Easter,” with their creative and fascinating visual displays of the dates of Easter over a given period of years—often accompanied by a plethora of related calendrical information. These “stones” are some of the most unique and detailed scientific productions of the ancient and medieval eras. As public and permanent proclamations of the most important event in human history, they stand in a class of their own which merits consideration. First, however, chapter four will trace the historical development of cycles of calendar dates used by Christians for the celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead—cycles of dates which were then inscribed on the stones.
[1] Especially notorious in this regard are John William Draper, History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009 [1874]) and Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (2 vols. New York: D. Appleton, 1896). Analysis of the influence of the Draper-White “conflict thesis” and the evolving relationship between religion and science over the past few centuries is found in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, “Introduction,” God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (Lindberg and Numbers, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 1-18. Since the late twentieth century the conflict thesis has been largely rejected by academicians and serious historians, although it has lingered in the popular media.
[2] Cf., Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Scribner, 1993) and The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do? (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1998).
[3] Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 325; Roger Pearse, “The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 12: Commemorations of the Martyrs.” MGH Chronica Minora I (1892), 71– 72, http:// www.tertullian.org/ fathers/ chronography_of_354_12_depositions_martyrs.htm.
[4] “On the Trinity” IV, 5; NPNF1, III, 74.
[5] ANF V, 179ff. Ogg concludes from Hippolytus’ Canon and Chronicle that he later identified AM 5502 as the year of Christ’s birth. It is also surmised that the single occurrence of Hippolytus’ association of 25 March with the birth date of Christ may be more properly a reference to his incarnation. See George Ogg, “Hippolytus and the Introduction of the Christian Era,” Viligiae Christianae 16, No.1 (March 1962): 2-18.
[6] For more on the likely date of Jesus’ birth and the historical matters of debate, see Steven L. Ware, When Was Jesus Really Born?: Early Christianity, the Calendar, and the Life of Jesus (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2013), 11ff.
[7] See, for instance, Stefan Heid, “The Romanness of Roman Christianity,” A Companion to Roman Religion (Jörg Rüpke, ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 417; “Saturnalia: the Carnival Celebration that Became Christmas and New Year’s Eve,” http://www.carnaval.com/saturnalia/. See also the review of literature of literature and arguments by Anthony McRoy, “Pagan Festival or Christian Celebration?,” http://www.answering-islam.org/pagan/christmas.html.
[8] “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,” V, III; ANF VII, 443.
[9] Gregory of Nazianzen, “On the Theophany, or Birthday of Christ,” NPNF2, VII, 346.
[10] Both Eusebius (Church History VII, 30) and Lactantius (Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died VI) interpreted Aurelian’s murder by officers of the Praetorian Guard as divine judgment for persecution of Christians. See NPNF2, I, 316; ANF VII, 303.
[11] Jonathan Williams, “Religion and Roman Coins,” A Companion to Roman Religion, 160-161 (Figure 11.38).
[12] Renan’s quote reads, “On peut dire que, si le christianisme eût été arrêté dans sa croissance par quelque maladie mortelle, le monde eût été mithriaste” (author’s translation in text). Joseph Ernest Renan, Marc-Aurele et la fin du monde antique (Paris: 1882), 579.
[13] Tertullian, “On Idolatry,” XIV; ANF III, 70. See also Increase Mather, A Testimony Against several Prophane and Superstitious Customs now Practiced by some in New-England (London: 1687); http://www.covenanter.org/IMather/increasemathertestimony.htm.
[14] Tertullian, “Apology”; ANF III, 17ff.
[15] Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” ANF III, 597ff.
[16] See Amanda Porschel-Dan, “Happy Pascha: The pagan goddess behind the holiday of Easter,” The Times of Israel (April 5, 2015), http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-pagan-goddess-behind-the-holiday-of-easter/; B. A. Robinson, “Easter: Its Pagan Origins,” http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm; Robinson, “Linkage between Jesus and various Pagan saviors,” http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa0.htm; “Happy Easter: Celebration of the Spring Equinox, http://www.nobeliefs.com/easter.htm; Heather McDougall, “The Pagan Roots of Easter,” The Guardian (April 3, 2010), http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism; Paul S. Taylor, “Where did Easter get its name?,” http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-020.html; Gerald L. Berry, Religions of the World (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1947), 71.
[17] Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie (Göttingen: Dieterischer Buchhandlung, 1854 [1835]), I, 267-268.
[18] Faith Wallis, ed. and trans., Bede: The Reckoning of Time (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), 54.
[19] Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution: How Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (New York: HarperOne, 2014), 83, 127ff.
[20] C. Suetonius Tranquillus, The Lives of the Caesars: The Life of Nero. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914), XXXI, 111, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/ 12Caesars/Nero*.html; Tacitus, Annals. Loeb Classical Library, CCCXXII, 285, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/ Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/15B*.html; William Stearns Davis, ed., Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-13), II, 298-300, https://legacy .fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pliny-trajan1.asp.
[21] “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,” V, III (ANF VII, 443); Socrates Scholasticus, “Ecclesiastical History,” V, 22 (NPNF Second Series, II, 130-131); Salminius Hermias Sozomenus, “Ecclesiastical History,” VII, 18 (NPNF Second Series, II, 388).
[22] Anthony McRoy, “Was Easter Borrowed from a Pagan Holiday?”, Christian History (April 2, 2009), http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2009/april/was-easter-borrowed-from-pagan-holiday.html.
The intent of the critics is certainly understandable: If one can separate Christian belief and practice from its historical claims concerning the uniqueness of Jesus Christ—his divinity, incarnation, vicarious suffering and death, and especially his resurrection from the dead—then Christianity is relegated to the curious level of just one more human belief system among numerous competitors, and in the minds of many to the historical dustbin.[1] Among the better-known forms of this onslaught was the Jesus Seminar of the 1980s-90s, which attempted to determine the historically credible words and acts of Jesus by the votes of its members. The result was the admitted attempt to separate the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith.”[2]
Some of the essentials of this rather anti-Christian line of reasoning have been repeated so many times in recent years through popular news media that many people have uncritically assumed its veracity. These assertions are heard most often around the major Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter. One such assertion is that the Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth on 25 December began as nothing less than a crude political power play by Roman Emperor Constantine I (r. 312-337). As the critique goes, no one has ever had a clue as to the calendar date of Jesus’ birth, and early Christians never bothered to celebrate the date of his birth. As it regards Constantine, he is seen as a political manipulator: sensing the increasing popularity of Christianity and its potential as a galvanizing social force in a Roman world desperately in need of unity following a period of internal warfare, Constantine invented a story about a vision of the cross, announced himself a Christian, and made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Furthermore, in order to enforce the practice of Christianity among the Roman populace, he deliberately replaced popular pagan festivals with Christian festivals. For instance, the pagan New Year festival at the vernal (Spring) equinox was replaced with the myth of Christ rising from the dead. Of equal importance, moreover, Constantine allegedly replaced the Roman festival of Saturnalia and the birthday of the sun at the Winter solstice with the celebration of Jesus’ birth.
What are Christians to make of such accusations? Is there any truth in these claims? What does it mean for the Christian observance of Christmas—the celebration of the birth of the Messiah? Even more importantly, what does it mean for the Christian celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, known as Easter? We shall begin by reviewing early Christian evidence for each of these feasts, and continue by investigating possible connections between them and ancient pre-Christian festivals.
Christmas Among Early Christians
The writings of several early Christian leaders point to the likelihood of widespread adoption of 25 December (or perhaps 6 January) as the birthdate of Jesus by the early third century. Evidence for festal celebration of his birth is, however, more scanty. The earliest known citation of 25 December as the birth date of Jesus is found in the Commentary on Daniel (4.23) by Hippolytus, where he stated that Christ was born on the eighth day of the kalends of January—which by Roman calculation is 25 December—and that it was a Wednesday. Just over a century later came the Chronograph of 354, an almanac of unknown authorship designed for use by Christians around Rome. The notation of “natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae” for VIII Kalends Ianuario is found at the beginning of a list of commemorative dates for Christian martyrs.[3] While these are the earliest known specific links of 25 December with the birth of Christ, in both documents this linkage is presented simply and forthrightly with no emphasis or explanation, which implies that the feast was already well known and that Christians around Rome had been celebrating Jesus’ birth on this date for some time.
But why 25 December? As is also the case with those who argue in favor of 6 January as the birth date of Jesus, it is not because of the date itself, but because of its relationship with another date nine months previous—which in this case is 25 March. It was stated perhaps most clearly by Augustine (354-430) of Hippo, who asserted not only that Christ “is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March,” but that it was “upon [this] day he also suffered,” and later that “He was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.”[4] Another example is found in the Canon of Hippolytus, where he specifically associated 25 March with the beginning of creation, and in one place even with the date of Christ’s birth.[5]
In the minds of many ancient peoples, including the Romans, 25 March was the vernal equinox (beginning of Spring), and was therefore viewed as the beginning of a new year. Many ancient peoples also understood the vernal equinox as marking the day of creation. In other words, the vernal equinox reflected the creation as it was at the very beginning—fresh from the hands of God, with all things in balance, and moving into the season of nature’s production. So for early Christians it only made eminent sense that God would likewise begin the re-creation of a redeemed humanity through the incarnation of his Son in human form on the same date.
An alternate way of understanding this (and, in the mind of this author, more theologically defensible from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint) is to assert the likelihood that the incarnation of Christ occurred on the Jewish feast of Passover—which was 30 March in 3 BC, the most likely year of Jesus’ birth.[6] Although a few days after the date of the vernal equinox, placing the incarnation on Passover provides a more theologically grounded date for the beginning of the earthly life of Christ, since he was likewise crucified on Passover thirty-five years later. And 30 March is still essentially nine months before the likely date of his birth on 25 December.
Christmas and Saturnalia
Saturnalia was popularly celebrated by the Romans on the several days surrounding the Winter Solstice, typically 17-23 December. Many have assumed that the choice of 25 December as the birthday celebration of Christ was a political power play by Constantine and his successors to enforce their new religion on the general populace. Commonly cited in this argument is the fact that Emperor Aurelian (r. AD 270-275) built a temple in Rome to “Sol Invictus” (the Unconquerable Sun) in AD 274—nearly a half-century before Constantine.[7] This assertion was popularized more recently by Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.
Unfortunately for its proponents, the theory of Christmas as a political power play and/or Christian overlay for a pagan holiday possesses some glaring weaknesses. First of all, evidence from early Christian sources indicates that Christians were already celebrating the birth of Christ long before Aurelian’s construction of the Sol Invictus temple. For instance, the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles—a document of unknown authorship, but which originated from Asia Minor in the late second to early third century—lists the birth of Christ along with several other feasts observed by Christians.[8] In addition, even the casual observer can see that the dates of Saturnalia do not exactly match that of Christmas, meaning that one is engaging in rather sloppy calendrics to assert so simply that Christmas was merely a Christian overlay intended to replace a pagan festival.
More evidence from patristic sources indicates that Christians were generally offended by the level of feasting, revelry, and sexual license which accompanied Saturnalia. For ancient Christians, the birth of Christ often meant fasting rather than feasting.[9] In addition, while Saturnalia may have been observed by numerous tribal groups before the lifetime of Jesus, it appears that Aurelian was the first to give it official Roman recognition. While the death of Aurelian likely prevented his persecution of Christians from advancing very far, his attempt to give political and societal backing to Saturnalia shows nonetheless that he was no friend of Christianity.[10]
Most important, however, is the evidence coming from the several ancient Christian writers who give the earliest input on Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth. Quite tellingly, none of them ever mentions Saturnalia in connection with Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth or in connection with the date of 25 December. Consequently, we have no hard evidence that early Christians even engaged in discussion about the replacement of Saturnalia by Christmas—which surely would have been a notable development, and would have elicited spirited discussion among them. It is therefore likely that the liberal critique of the origin of the celebrations surrounding the birth of Christ is dependent on a skewed interpretation of historical facts— that in fact the Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth predated the official recognition of Saturnalia, not vice-versa. While numismatic evidence of the period appears to affirm the claim that Constantine indeed suppressed the cult of Sol Invictus[11], the prior popularity of the Christmas celebration means that there was no need for him to attempt a simple Christian replacement of Saturnalia. Hence, it appears that this is at least equally a case of a pagan Roman ruler of the third century attempting to counteract the growing popularity of Christianity, as it is a case of a Christian Roman ruler of the fourth century attempting to counteract the popularity of a pagan practice.
A similar accusation against early Christians has been made with reference to Mithraism—a popular cult in the Roman world in the first to fourth centuries AD. Based on worship of the Persian deity Mithras, it shared some similarities of theology and practice with Christianity, including a cosmic struggle between good and evil, a personal savior, communal meals, and a hierarchy of officials. French scholar Joseph Ernest Renan (1823-1892) in fact viewed Mithraism as a viable competitor to early Christianity, claiming, “One can say that, had Christianity been halted by the growth of some mortal malady, the world might have been Mithraist.”[12] Later writers have tempered Renan’s enthusiasm, emphasizing instead the many theological and practical divergences between the two, and attributing the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism to the Roman culture in which both grew during the same period.
Speaking of Christians who were offended by the antics of those who participated in the rites of Saturnalia and Mithraism, one early Christian author who did make specific mention of Saturnalia was Tertullian (AD 145-220) in his On Idolatry. Understandably, Tertullian’s primary concern was to warn Christians against participation in the patently sinful activities of Saturnalia—gluttony, drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and especially pagan worship rituals. Tertullian made no specific mention, however, of Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth, whether at the same time of the year or any other. Some Christians—including Puritan minister Increase Mather (1639-1723)—have perceived a veiled reference to Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth in Tertullian’s challenge to his readers: “Not the Lord’s day, not Pentecost, even if…[non-Christians]… had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians. [Yet] We are not apprehensive lest we seem to be heathens!”[13]
In all fairness to Mather (and to Tertullian), we should remember that one of the prime reasons for their feelings of revulsion against the popular practices of Saturnalia is that before the invention of modern refrigeration in the early twentieth century, December was traditionally a period of feasting in nearly all societies in the temperate zones North of the Tropics. Since December is after the major harvest of grains and vegetables, and after the major hunting season of the year, it was often celebrated with feasting (fresh food tastes better!) before the majority of the food stuffs were salted away and stored for future months. Unfortunately, this also means that December became known for gluttony, drunkenness, and the consequent rowdiness and other behaviors which resulted from this setting. These became the behaviors associated with Saturnalia and other cultural celebrations of the Winter Solstice—behaviors which are inadvisable for anyone seeking to follow Jesus.
The possibility that Tertullian was referring to Saturnalia in this comment without mentioning it specifically is debatable at best. (He does specifically mention Saturnalia and some other cultural festivals elsewhere in the same document, but here he mentions none of them specifically.) Even if it is true, however, that Tertullian is here referring to Saturnalia, what seems to have escaped the notice of Mather—and of anyone who would see this as historical evidence of the use of Christmas as a Christian overlay of Saturnalia—is the very chronology involved. In other words, if Tertullian was indeed referring to Christian celebrations of Jesus’ birth, then it is further evidence of Christmas as a public Christian event in the early third century—a half-century before the construction of the Sol Invictus temple by Aurelian and a full century before Constantine and the legalization of Christianity in the Roman world. In other words, it constitutes solid textual evidence of the exact opposite of what Mather and others wish to assert.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that Christians were intermittently persecuted during Tertullian’s lifetime and for another century thereafter until the rise of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity. (Witness Tertullian’s own Apology addressed to “Rulers of the Roman Empire.”[14]) Under such circumstances, Christians would have had little opportunity or the political weight required to attempt the cultural conversion from Saturnalia to Christmas. On the other hand, however, Tertullian—the first Christian writer to clearly delineate the doctrine of one God in three persons[15]—would have had every reason to urge fellow-believers to remain faithful to their confession of the one true God and therefore to avoid any pollution of their faith by participation in culturally popular activities.
This was the same challenge facing the first generation of Gentile Christians, who were strongly encouraged by the letter from the apostles following the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29) to avoid 1) eating meat from animals sacrificed to idols, 2) drinking blood, 3) eating meat from strangled animals, and 4) sexual promiscuity—all features of pagan worship rituals. And perhaps this is the same challenge facing Christians in a modern Western world in which the cultural forces incessantly encourage ever more consumer spending—to practice more uniquely Christian ways of celebrating the birth of the Messiah.
Pascha, Easter, and Östre
Although it receives decidedly less attention in a modern commercial world which seeks to squeeze a financial gain from every calendrical occasion which can be even remotely conceived as a holiday, the Christian observance of Easter has nevertheless received its fair share of revisionistic historical critique in recent years. As is the case with Christmas, anyone who executes a simple online search using the word “Easter” will find no dearth of articles claiming an ancient pagan pedigree for the Christian feast. In this case, the deity is the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre, (known variously as Östre, Ostara, Eostur, Austro, etc.), whence we get our term “East” (Ost in German)—a reference to the direction of the dawn and the beginning of each new day.
Not surprisingly, some authors have alleged that after Christianity was legalized and slowly became the dominant religion in the late Roman world the Christian authorities usurped Eosturmonath (“month of Eostur,” roughly equivalent with April) and adapted it for their own use. In addition, it has been alleged that the continued prominence of pre-Christian elements such as rabbits and eggs in celebrations of the new life of Spring shows the falsehood of the Christian claim that Easter is only about the resurrection of Jesus—that in fact early Christians participated rather syncretistically in the worship of numerous local deities. Some have adopted the History of Religions approach in claiming that the story of Jesus’ resurrection is merely a myth that Christians borrowed from non-Judaic religious traditions and pasted onto the popular stories and teachings of Jesus. Some have taken the further step to allege that “Easter” finds its theological as well as linguistic roots in “Ashtoreth”—a female deity common among several of ancient Israel’s neighbors, whose worship cult was specifically condemned and placed under prohibition for the Israelites (Judges 2:10-15, 10:6; 1 Samuel 7:3-4, 12:10; 1 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 23:7).[16]
What may be surprising to many moderns, however, is the dearth of support for such assertions from ancient and medieval sources, whether Christian or otherwise. While philologists since Jacob Grimm[17] have noted the possible linguistic connections between Easter and “Eostur,” “Ostara,” and so on, the only known citation of “Eostur” by an author of the medieval period appears to be that of Bede the Venerable in AD 725. In his The Reckoning of Time he noted,
Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated “Paschal month”, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honor feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honored name of the old observance.[18]
So are Christians indeed guilty of usurping a prior pagan festival and imposing their own meaning upon it? Did Christians simply borrow wholesale from the legends of pre-existing religious traditions to invent the story of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead? Four distinct pieces of evidence argue strongly against such a conclusion. The first piece of evidence is the disciples’ own experience of the resurrected Jesus. As noted in chapter one, their encounter with the resurrected Jesus was so transformative that it provided the impetus for the beginning of the movement that became known as Christianity. In other words, without the unmistakable and unshakable belief of the disciples that Jesus had indeed risen physically from the dead, Christianity never would have become a movement in the first place. Their insistence on the physical resurrection of Jesus provided the primary point of contention between them and the Jewish religious leaders in the weeks and months immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus, as recorded in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles (4:5-22, 5:27-42, 7:51-60). Furthermore, the apostles understood the life and work of Jesus as the center-point and end-point of human history, as evidenced by Peter urging his listeners at Solomon’s Portico to repent so that God would “send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago” (3:19-21).
The second piece of evidence is the early Christian awareness of opposition—even violent opposition—to their message. It is clear from Acts (4:19-20, 5:29, 7:54ff, 21:13-14) and other places in the New Testament (2 Timothy 4:6-8; 1 Peter 3:8, 4:12) that the earliest Christians were willing to risk their own lives for the message of Jesus’ resurrection. From all appearances they took to heart the words of Jesus himself that, “…they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake” (Matthew 24:9), and “If the world hates you, know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). Under such circumstances, it is unimaginable that the followers of Jesus would have put their lives on the line for a false message. In other words, if they knew that they had simply hidden the dead body of Jesus and invented the story of his resurrection, they surely would not have died for it.
Predictably, some have claimed that the early Christian tales of persecution and martyrdom at the hands of Jewish and especially Roman authorities were largely invented by Christians of the early fourth century who sought to legitimize their newfound political favor under Constantine and his successors. Furthermore, it is alleged that these themes were then intentionally woven into the heavily edited New Testament—which they falsely claimed was written entirely by the apostles.[19] But such a claim is hardly credible, as it is highly unlikely that the Christian movement would have survived for even one generation—let alone three centuries—if its earliest propagators knew that its central message of Jesus’ resurrection was historically untrue. More to the point, however, this claim runs counter to Roman sources which clearly testify to persecution of Christians. Imperial biographer Suetonius (ca. AD 122), for instance, noted that Nero persecuted Christians, apparently because they were “given to a new and mischievous superstition.” Moreover, Tacitus (ca. 115) documented that Nero sought to place the blame on Christians for the great fire of Rome in AD 64. And even more obvious testimony of Roman persecution of Christians is the correspondence between Emperor Trajan and Pliny the Younger, governor of Pontus and Bithynia (ca. 112), which documents the practices of arrest, interrogation, invitation to renounce Christ and participate in the state cult, and even execution.[20]
The third piece of evidence arguing against the possibility of Christian adoption of pagan rites at the vernal equinox springs from the very chronology of the spread of Christianity. The Germanic tribes of Northern Europe were relative late-comers to the faith in the fifth through ninth centuries—well after the proliferation of Christian worship practices throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East, and even after many of the debates over calculation of the proper date of the resurrection celebration from year to year. The aforementioned Constitutions of the Holy Apostles includes the resurrection celebration as an annual feast of Christians at the turn of the third century. In addition, fifth century church historians Socrates Scholasticus (ca. 430) and Sozomenus (ca. 445) both affirm that annual resurrection celebrations of their day have apostolic roots.[21] So if Christians of Northern Europe did somehow adopt the theology and practices of their pagan neighbors, the truly remarkable thing to be noted is that it changed none of the essentials of the Christian faith.
The fourth piece of evidence arguing against a pagan origin of Easter is the rather limited linguistic bounds of the word itself. While the Deutschesprechers and English-speakers among Christians comfortably speak of Oster and Easter, most other languages used by Christians employ some form of the Greek term Πασχα (“Pascha”). Derived from the verb πασχω, meaning “to suffer,” it is a reference to Jesus’ suffering on the cross. Although not a direct translation of the Hebrew term פסח (‘Pesach,” translated “Passover”), as is often assumed, it is nevertheless understood as a rough equivalent since Jesus is the Passover Lamb whose blood atoned for the sins of humanity. Regardless, accusations that Christians somehow usurped pagan celebrations of Eostur and Ostara sound strangely irrelevant to the majority of Christians worldwide who celebrate Pascha.
This is not to say, on the other hand, that Christians have completely avoided the use of local practices, traditions, and words. Anthony McRoy said it well:
“Of course, even if Christians did engage in contextualization—expressing their message and worship in the language or forms of the local people—that in no way implies doctrinal compromise. Christians around the world have sought to redeem the local culture for Christ while purging it of practices antithetical to biblical norms. After all, Christians speak of “Good Friday,” but they are in no way honoring the worship of the Norse/Germanic queen of the gods Freya by doing so.”[22]
Unfortunately, this appears to be a case in which many modern Christians have allowed themselves to be victimized by the popularity of an accusation that comes from outside Christianity and has no real historical basis. Indeed, some evangelical Protestants have operated on the assumption that any practice associated in any way with medieval Roman Catholicism is thereby corrupt and un-Christian. But if this chapter has clarified anything at all, it is the fact that Christian celebrations of the particular dates of Jesus’ birth and resurrection from the dead pre-date by centuries anything that can be called medieval Catholicism—and date very possibly from the earliest generations of Christians.
Later chapters will discuss the “Stones of Easter,” with their creative and fascinating visual displays of the dates of Easter over a given period of years—often accompanied by a plethora of related calendrical information. These “stones” are some of the most unique and detailed scientific productions of the ancient and medieval eras. As public and permanent proclamations of the most important event in human history, they stand in a class of their own which merits consideration. First, however, chapter four will trace the historical development of cycles of calendar dates used by Christians for the celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead—cycles of dates which were then inscribed on the stones.
[1] Especially notorious in this regard are John William Draper, History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009 [1874]) and Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (2 vols. New York: D. Appleton, 1896). Analysis of the influence of the Draper-White “conflict thesis” and the evolving relationship between religion and science over the past few centuries is found in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, “Introduction,” God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (Lindberg and Numbers, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 1-18. Since the late twentieth century the conflict thesis has been largely rejected by academicians and serious historians, although it has lingered in the popular media.
[2] Cf., Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Scribner, 1993) and The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do? (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1998).
[3] Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 325; Roger Pearse, “The Chronography of 354 AD. Part 12: Commemorations of the Martyrs.” MGH Chronica Minora I (1892), 71– 72, http:// www.tertullian.org/ fathers/ chronography_of_354_12_depositions_martyrs.htm.
[4] “On the Trinity” IV, 5; NPNF1, III, 74.
[5] ANF V, 179ff. Ogg concludes from Hippolytus’ Canon and Chronicle that he later identified AM 5502 as the year of Christ’s birth. It is also surmised that the single occurrence of Hippolytus’ association of 25 March with the birth date of Christ may be more properly a reference to his incarnation. See George Ogg, “Hippolytus and the Introduction of the Christian Era,” Viligiae Christianae 16, No.1 (March 1962): 2-18.
[6] For more on the likely date of Jesus’ birth and the historical matters of debate, see Steven L. Ware, When Was Jesus Really Born?: Early Christianity, the Calendar, and the Life of Jesus (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2013), 11ff.
[7] See, for instance, Stefan Heid, “The Romanness of Roman Christianity,” A Companion to Roman Religion (Jörg Rüpke, ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 417; “Saturnalia: the Carnival Celebration that Became Christmas and New Year’s Eve,” http://www.carnaval.com/saturnalia/. See also the review of literature of literature and arguments by Anthony McRoy, “Pagan Festival or Christian Celebration?,” http://www.answering-islam.org/pagan/christmas.html.
[8] “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,” V, III; ANF VII, 443.
[9] Gregory of Nazianzen, “On the Theophany, or Birthday of Christ,” NPNF2, VII, 346.
[10] Both Eusebius (Church History VII, 30) and Lactantius (Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died VI) interpreted Aurelian’s murder by officers of the Praetorian Guard as divine judgment for persecution of Christians. See NPNF2, I, 316; ANF VII, 303.
[11] Jonathan Williams, “Religion and Roman Coins,” A Companion to Roman Religion, 160-161 (Figure 11.38).
[12] Renan’s quote reads, “On peut dire que, si le christianisme eût été arrêté dans sa croissance par quelque maladie mortelle, le monde eût été mithriaste” (author’s translation in text). Joseph Ernest Renan, Marc-Aurele et la fin du monde antique (Paris: 1882), 579.
[13] Tertullian, “On Idolatry,” XIV; ANF III, 70. See also Increase Mather, A Testimony Against several Prophane and Superstitious Customs now Practiced by some in New-England (London: 1687); http://www.covenanter.org/IMather/increasemathertestimony.htm.
[14] Tertullian, “Apology”; ANF III, 17ff.
[15] Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” ANF III, 597ff.
[16] See Amanda Porschel-Dan, “Happy Pascha: The pagan goddess behind the holiday of Easter,” The Times of Israel (April 5, 2015), http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-pagan-goddess-behind-the-holiday-of-easter/; B. A. Robinson, “Easter: Its Pagan Origins,” http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm; Robinson, “Linkage between Jesus and various Pagan saviors,” http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa0.htm; “Happy Easter: Celebration of the Spring Equinox, http://www.nobeliefs.com/easter.htm; Heather McDougall, “The Pagan Roots of Easter,” The Guardian (April 3, 2010), http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism; Paul S. Taylor, “Where did Easter get its name?,” http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-020.html; Gerald L. Berry, Religions of the World (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1947), 71.
[17] Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie (Göttingen: Dieterischer Buchhandlung, 1854 [1835]), I, 267-268.
[18] Faith Wallis, ed. and trans., Bede: The Reckoning of Time (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999), 54.
[19] Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution: How Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (New York: HarperOne, 2014), 83, 127ff.
[20] C. Suetonius Tranquillus, The Lives of the Caesars: The Life of Nero. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914), XXXI, 111, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/ 12Caesars/Nero*.html; Tacitus, Annals. Loeb Classical Library, CCCXXII, 285, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/ Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/15B*.html; William Stearns Davis, ed., Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-13), II, 298-300, https://legacy .fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pliny-trajan1.asp.
[21] “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,” V, III (ANF VII, 443); Socrates Scholasticus, “Ecclesiastical History,” V, 22 (NPNF Second Series, II, 130-131); Salminius Hermias Sozomenus, “Ecclesiastical History,” VII, 18 (NPNF Second Series, II, 388).
[22] Anthony McRoy, “Was Easter Borrowed from a Pagan Holiday?”, Christian History (April 2, 2009), http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2009/april/was-easter-borrowed-from-pagan-holiday.html.